Why British did not take over and colonized Patagonia ?

May 2018
80
India


The climate was similar, land was planty, greek, cold, mountainousetc with low % of Natives so why British nevertried tl colonized it as a "Us/canada of South America" ?


Off topic : what if brits Completed invasions from Plata and took over Patagonia and colonized it with European people ? Do you think this country can be a 1st world country ?
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,902
Stockport Cheshire UK
How profitable would it have been ?
Apart from the latter period of the 19th and early 20th century the British Empire's expansion was mainly guided by profit not territory.
 
Aug 2016
977
US&A
How profitable would it have been ?
Apart from the latter period of the 19th and early 20th century the British Empire's expansion was mainly guided by profit not territory.

I'm not sure of the timelines but assuming the suez and panama canals weren't built yet, being able to control one of the two routes to Asia seems like it might've been helpful. I dunno though.
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,776
Australia
I would say that it would not have been cost effective. Not enough profit to be made to offset the annoyance of the USA and Spain over Britain obtaining more colonies in what they considered their area of influence.
 

GogLais

Ad Honorem
Sep 2013
5,516
Wirral
Off topic : what if brits Completed invasions from Plata and took over Patagonia and colonized it with European people ? Do you think this country can be a 1st world country ?
It was colonised by Europeans.
 

mark87

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,106
Santiago de Chile
It was in a sense. Thousands of British people landed there, but it was more of an economic ''take over'', it was Britons who mainly started the sheep ranching industry on both sides of the Patagonian border in Chile and Argentina. The issue is that there were also other Europeans (a wide range of nationalities) and Chileans and Argentine's who migrated there in the late 19th century. At this point in time the British had their 'economic empire' and the sheep ranchers were a part of it, as were all their numerous investments in other parts of Latin america. There were an estimated 20,000 British born in Buenos Aires alone at one point of the second half of the 19th century, other port cities in the region like Valparaiso in Chile also had thousands of Britons who were mainly agents of commerce and industry giving much need credit and know how to the local flourishing industries all over the continent once independence was achieved.
What ended this ''colonization'' (by the way the whole endeavor in Patagonia got really ugly at one point with European and ''local'' Indian hunters running around and genocide occurring with the Argentine and Chilean governments looking the other way) was the economic downturn which came with the first world war and the global shipping industry that went with that. Also Panama Canal opening changed the strategic importance of the Patagonian ports.

PS. Patagonia is a region, often ill defined, not a country since it straddles two countries in actuality.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
335
Argentina
Hey Razdan.
I’m sorry to tell you, you are seriously miss informed. The uk or england or whatever did try to take the Patagonia as their colony. They just failed in the attempt. british ships an cannons came in 1806 and again in 1807. This second time, they took the city of Buenos Aires and give rulings.
The takeback was mostly the work and the sacrifice of the people of Buenos Aires, whom by that time, already used the demonym “argentinos”. Though, the Spanish viceroy did his part. When running away, they took to london the treasure they stole and never returned it. Soon after that, london realized that it wasn’t through guns they would get good profit out of this colony. British bankers and diplomats started to come, and bribe a big part of the ruling class of these lands (who also enjoyed it, of course).
Mark at post #8 summarized very well part of the economic take over. It just should be added that in 1824, Baring brothers bankers house delivered a large loan very aware that the money (only paper, not the metal whose necessity had justified taking the debt in the first place) was mostly directed to bribes, not to infrastructure building. In similar terms it was that trains arrived to Provincias Unidas del Sud, with all railways in fan shape, pointing to the port but not connecting interior lands.
To be fair, in the first half of 18th century, Buenos Aires government still hadn’t taken over all Patagonia, only the northern most part of it. Also to be fair, continuous moving the frontier southwards, only brought more and more lands to british enterprises, extracting wealth (wool and cattle, not a single swatter or salty meat) by british trains and british ships.
About the strategic importance of having ports near the Magallanes canal, british also thought about it and took Malvinas islands en 1833.
IMHO.
¡¡¡Aguante Talleres!!!